roadmap VS sigstore-python

I wish Poetry were PEP-621 compliant though. [1]

Currently, it uses a proprietary configuration group (or "tool section", as they seem to call it in `pyproject.toml` speech).

[1]: https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3

https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3

Sorry for the late reply. I cannot recall the exact source, but I found this issue in the poetry repo: https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3. IIUC, they are trying to make poetry compliant with PEP621 but the PR was not merged yet? Will update the original comment to add this nuance.

I believe that Poetry does conform to PEP 518 (i.e. it specifies `[build-system]requires`), but not to the `dependencies` part of PEP 621 [1]. There are plans for this in the future though [2].

[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0621/

[2] https://github.com/python-poetry/roadmap/issues/3

You could use `pip-compile` if you want full pinning. That's what we do on another project -- we use GitHub Actions with `pip-compile` to provide a fully frozen copy of the dependency tree for users who'd like that[1].

In the context of `pip-audit`, that makes a little less sense: most of our dependencies are semantically versioned, and we'd rather users receive patches and fixes to our subdependencies automatically, rather than having to wait for us to release a corresponding fix version. Similarly, we expect users to install `pip-audit` into pre-existing virtual environments, meaning that excessive pinning will produce overly conservative dependency conflict errors.

[1]: https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-python/tree/main/instal...

The conflicting advice is a serious problem.

I hope you'll forgive me for adding one additional piece of advice: for many Python packages, the only packaging metadata you need is `pyproject.toml`. You don't even need `setup.py` anymore, so long as you're using a build backend that supports editable installs with `pyproject.toml`.

Here's an example of a Python package that does everything in `pyproject.toml`[1]. You should be able to copy that into any of your projects, edit it to match your metadata, and everything will work exactly as if you have a `setup.cfg` or `setup.py`.

[1]: https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-python

You're right, both the infrastructure and metadata for cryptographic signatures on Python packages (both wheels and sdists) isn't quite there yet.

At the moment, we're working towards the "e2e" scheme you've described by adding support for Sigstore[1] certificates and signatures, which will allow any number of identities (including email addresses and individual GitHub release workflows) to sign for packages. The integrity/availability of those signing artifacts will in turn be enforced through TUF, like you mentioned.

You can follow some of the related Sigstore-in-Python work here[2], and the ongoing Warehouse (PyPI) TUF work here[3]. We're also working on adding OpenID Connect token consumption[4] to Warehouse itself, meaning that you'll be able to bootstrap from a trusted GitHub workflow to a PyPI release token without needing to share any secrets.

[1]: https://www.sigstore.dev/

[2]: https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-python

[3]: https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/pull/10870

[4]: https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/pull/11272